Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
1989 INSC 84
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • Article 226 of the Constitution
  • Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act
  • Section 60 of the Bombay Police Act
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
1989 INSC 84
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • Article 226 of the Constitution
  • Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act
  • Section 60 of the Bombay Police Act
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The respondent was served with an externment order under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act directing him to leave the districts of Aurangabad and Jalna for a period of two years. The order stated that from 11-5-1980 the respondent was frequently engaged in illegal narcotics business and was involved in several cases of riot and criminal intimidation causing physical harm to local residents, allegedly because he suspected them of supplying information to the police. The order further recorded that witnesses were unwilling to depose against him.

The respondent filed an appeal under Section 60 of the Act and, while that appeal was pending, moved the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. During the pendency of the writ petition, the State Government dismissed the appeal by a short order. The respondent then challenged the appellate order as well within the pending writ petition. At final hearing, the High Court accepted the contention that the appellate order was vitiated for want of reasons and quashed both the appellate order and the original externment order on that ground alone. The State Government appealed against the High Court judgment.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether an appellate order by the State Government under Section 60 of the Bombay Police Act dismissing an externment appeal is vitiated in law solely because it does not contain reasons.
  2. Whether the High Court was correct in quashing the externment order (and its confirmation in appeal) on the ground that the appellate authority did not provide reasons.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

  • The appellant (State Government) relied on the Supreme Court decision in Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar v. Deputy Commissioner of Police to submit that, in externment proceedings, neither the externing authority nor the appellate authority is required to write a reasoned order akin to a judgment.

Respondent/Petitioner's Arguments (as recorded in the High Court proceedings)

  • One of the points urged before the High Court was that the State Government omitted to give reasons while dismissing the appeal, and therefore the appellate order was vitiated in law.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar v. Deputy Commissioner of Police (1973) 1 SCC 372, (1973) 3 SCR 63 In externment proceedings, full disclosure of particulars and reasoned orders akin to judgments may defeat the purpose of the proceedings because witnesses may be unwilling to depose publicly out of fear; therefore, the externing authority and the State Government in appeal cannot be required to write reasoned orders discussing evidence. The Court applied the principle to hold that the High Court erred in quashing the externment order (as confirmed in appeal) solely due to absence of reasons in the appellate order.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court relied on its earlier decision in Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar, which addressed similar objections concerning externment proceedings. The reasoning emphasized the preventive and protective character of externment: certain “lawless elements” may be difficult to prosecute through ordinary criminal trials because convictions require legal evidence, and such evidence may be unattainable when witnesses fear reprisal and refuse to testify publicly.

On the specific question of reasons in the appellate order, the Court adopted the logic that, for the same reason that the proposed externee is only entitled to the general nature of the allegations, the externing authority and the appellate authority cannot be compelled to produce a reasoned order “in the nature of a judgment.” The Court noted that discussion of evidence in a reasoned order could reveal the identity of reluctant witnesses and trigger further harassment. On this basis, the Court concluded that the High Court was in error in quashing the externment order and the appellate confirmation solely for want of reasons.

However, the Court also took note of the passage of time since the externment order was made and addressed the matter pragmatically: while the High Court’s error required correction to avoid prejudicing other similar cases, the impugned externment order need not be revived against the respondent at that stage.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT that the High Court’s judgment was set aside; however, the Court clarified that the externment order “shall not be enforced against the respondent any further.”

The direct consequence was that the High Court’s quashing of the externment and appellate orders was overturned as legally erroneous, but the respondent would not be subjected to renewed enforcement of the old externment order due to the time elapsed. The Court expressly indicated that the correction was necessary to prevent the High Court’s reasoning from prejudicing other similar cases; beyond this stated concern, the opinion does not discuss any broader implications or creation of new precedent.

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    State Of Maharashtra And Another v. Salem Hasan Khan .

    1. Special leave granted.

    2. The respondent was served with an externment order passed under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) directing him to leave the districts of Aurangabad and Jalna for a period of two years. The order stated that from 11-5-1980 the respondent was found to be frequently engaged in illegal business of narcotics and since he was involved in several cases of riot and criminal intimidation causing physical hurts to the residents of the locality on account of his suspicion that they were supplying information to the police about his illegal activities, witnesses were not willing to come forward and depose against him. He filed an appeal under Section 60 of the Act and while the appeal was pending he moved the Bombay High Court with a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution. During the pendency of the writ application the State Government dismissed the respondent's appeal by a short order. The writ petitioner thereafter challenged the appellate order also in the pending writ case.

    3. At the time of the final hearing of the writ case before the High Court, four points were raised on behalf of the petitioner. As the first point, it was urged that since the State Government omitted to give reasons in support of the order of dismissal of the appeal, the same was vitiated in law. The High Court agreed with the petitioner and allowed the writ application quashing the appellate order as well as the initial externment order on this ground alone without going to the other questions. The State Government has challenged the High Court judgment in the present appeal.

    4. On behalf of the appellant reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar v. Deputy Commissioner of Police (1973) 1 SCC 372, (1973) 3 SCR 63, wherein a similar plea was taken by the appellant before this Court. It was contended that the failure on the part of the State Government indicated non-application of mind. The appellant had also urged that the allegations contained in the show-cause notice were too vague in absence of details to afford him reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Rejecting the argument, this Court held that a full and complete disclosure of particulars, as is requisite in an open prosecution, will frustrate the very purpose of an externment proceeding. There is a brand of lawless elements in society which it is impossible to bring to book by established methods of judicial trial because in such trials there can be no conviction without legal evidence. And legal evidence is impossible to obtain, because out of fear of reprisal witnesses are unwilling to depose in public. While dealing with the contention that the State Government was under a duty to give reasons in support of its order dismissing the appeal, the point was rejected in the following terms:

    “Precisely for the reason for which the proposed externee is only entitled to be informed of the general nature of the material allegations, neither the externing authority nor the State Government in appeal can be asked to write a reasoned order in the nature of a judgment.”
    As observed, if the authorities were to discuss the evidence in the case, it would be easy to fix the identity of the witnesses who were unwilling to depose in public against the proposed externee. A reasoned order containing a discussion would probably spark off another round of harassment. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court was in error in quashing the order as confirmed by the State Government in appeal.

    5. The externment order was made several years back and the learned counsel for the appellant rightly stated that although the impugned order need not be revived now, it was necessary to correct the error in the High Court's judgment as it is likely to prejudice other similar cases. Accordingly in the circumstance we set aside the impugned judgment but make it clear that the externment order shall not be enforced against the respondent any further. The appeal accordingly allowed to this extent.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    State Of Maharashtra And Another v. Salem Hasan Khan .
    (Mar 9, 1989)